The Lawn Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People told us they were treated with dignity in their day-to-day care and support. Relatives spoke positively about staff. Comments included, “The staff go above and beyond on a daily basis to make [my family member] feel as comfortable as they possibly can, talking to [my family member], treating them with dignity and caring for their needs,”, “The staff are all friendly and kind to [family member] and are always polite and helpful to me as the relative,”, and “[My family member] hasn't had a bad word to say about any of the staff. They are lovely.”

Staff told us they treated people with kindness and dignity. A staff member said, “When I am supporting a person, I am focused on that person.”

We observed staff were friendly towards people and each other.People appeared comfortable with staff.

Health and social care professionals were complimentary about the service. A health and social care professional said, “Residents are beautifully looked after, rooms are tidy, people are clean, and their clothes fit.”

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s personal, cultural, social and religious needs were understood and met. The service had a chapel on site and staff supported people to access a non-denominational church service on regular basis.

People told us they were treated as individuals, their relatives agreed.A relative said, “The service gives [my family member] as much free choice as is possible.”

Staff knew people well and were aware of their personal preferences and cultural needs. Various activities were available at the service and people were encouraged to join in.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were supported to maintain relationships and networks that were important to them. Relatives were complimentary about the service and told us they always felt welcomed when visiting theirfamily members. One relative told us about an improvement in their family members mobility which supported them to be more independent. Another relative said, “We are welcome as visitors at any time of the day.”

Staff told us of the importance of offering people choices.A staff member said they always ask people for consent before providing care and provide choices.

We observed a range of appropriate equipment available to support and maximise people’s independence and outcomes from care and treatment.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes.

Some people and relatives told us they wished there were more staff present at the service as sometimes they had to wait some time for a staff member to answer their call bell. A relative said, “[My family member] would say that they often have to wait a long time after pressing their buzzer for someone to arrive and check on them.I don't have any actual times, but that is their perception. I know there have been times when the home has been short staffed.” A person told us they sometimes had to wait 5 minutes or longer for staff to answer their call bell.

The registered manager did a monthly audit of call bell times to establish any themes and people’s changing needs. This meant the service worked on improving both resident safety and service quality.

The service had a system to determine the number of staff required in relation to people’s needs. The system indicated that staffing levels were sufficient. The registered manager was in the process of recruiting more permanent staff.

Staff were able to recognise when people needed help or support and contacted health and social care professionals appropriately.

The service discussed people’s needs through daily handovers, meetings and reviews.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they felt supported in their roles and described the registered manager as approachable. A staff member said, “I feel like there is support if you need anything wellbeing wise.”

Staff had access to an employee assistance programme offering confidential support for mental health, physical health, financial advice, and counselling services. The provider run quarterly wellbeing forums where staff could share feedback and contribute to decisions about wellbeing initiatives.

The registered manager had an open-door policy. Wellbeing was discussed as part of the supervision programme and staff took part in team meetings.